Industrial Materials
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Inputs
Agricultural Inputs
Chemicals - Specialty
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Industrial Materials | Agricultural Inputs | Agricultural Inputs | Agricultural Inputs | Chemicals - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $141M | $32.89B | $7.27B | $7.74B | $13.08B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $26.90B | $11.68B | $7.05B | $4.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-67M | $2.27B | $1.22B | $369M | $524M |
| Gross Margin | — | 31.1% | 16.5% | 31.9% | 27.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | 13.4% | 9.9% | 10.6% | 21.1% |
| Forward P/E | — | 12.0x | 15.7x | 15.6x | 15.0x |
| Total Debt | $606K | $12.93B | $760M | $2.76B | $4.82B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $700M | $277M | $291M | $1.38B |
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) | 100 | 20.2 | -79.8% |
| Nutrien Ltd. (NTR) | 100 | 146.5 | +46.5% |
| The Mosaic Company (MOS) | 100 | 86.6 | -13.4% |
| ICL Group Ltd (ICL) | 100 | 131.0 | +31.0% |
| Sociedad Química y … (SQM) | 100 | 238.2 | +138.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GRO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
NTR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 5.3%, EPS growth 248.5%, 3Y rev CAGR -10.3%
- 5.3% revenue growth vs SQM's -39.4%
- Lower P/E (12.0x vs 15.0x)
MOS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.52, yield 4.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.52, Low D/E 6.2%, current ratio 1.32x
- Beta 0.52, yield 4.2%, current ratio 1.32x
- Beta 0.52 vs GRO's 1.84
ICL is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.27 vs MOS's 0.91
SQM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 464.6% 10Y total return vs ICL's 98.7%
- 12.1% margin vs GRO's 0.0%
- +173.2% vs MOS's -24.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 5.3% revenue growth vs SQM's -39.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.0x vs 15.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 12.1% margin vs GRO's 0.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.52 vs GRO's 1.84 | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs NTR's 3.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +173.2% vs MOS's -24.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.0% ROA vs GRO's -31.6%, ROIC 6.1% vs -24.6% |
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SQM leads in 2 of 6 categories
MOS leads 1 • GRO leads 0 • NTR leads 0 • ICL leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SQM leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NTR and GRO operate at a comparable scale, with $26.9B and $0 in trailing revenue. SQM is the more profitable business, keeping 12.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to ICL's 5.2%. On growth, SQM holds the edge at +8.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $26.9B | $11.7B | $7.1B | $4.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$67M | $6.0B | $2.2B | $1.3B | $917M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$67M | $2.3B | $1.2B | $369M | $524M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$27M | $2.0B | -$535M | $317M | $66M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +31.1% | +16.5% | +31.9% | +27.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +13.4% | +9.9% | +10.6% | +21.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +8.4% | +10.5% | +5.2% | +12.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +7.4% | -4.6% | +4.5% | +1.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +6.8% | -7.5% | +5.7% | +8.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.4% | +4.2% | +3.8% | -1.0% | +34.8% |
Valuation Metrics
MOS leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.9x trailing earnings, MOS trades at a 82% valuation discount to ICL's 33.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MOS offers better value at 0.34x vs ICL's 0.58x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $141M | $32.9B | $7.3B | $7.7B | $13.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $123M | $45.1B | $7.8B | $10.2B | $16.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.06x | 14.42x | 5.90x | 33.33x | -64.51x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 12.01x | 15.68x | 15.59x | 15.04x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.35x | 0.34x | 0.58x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 7.08x | 3.59x | 7.75x | 15.43x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 1.20x | 0.62x | 1.08x | 2.89x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.70x | 1.31x | 0.55x | 1.24x | 5.02x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 16.15x | — | 59.57x | 43.19x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — GRO and MOS each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MOS delivers a 10.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $10 in annual profit, vs $-33 for GRO. GRO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.00x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to SQM's 0.93x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NTR scores 8/9 vs ICL's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -32.6% | +9.1% | +10.0% | +5.8% | +9.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -31.6% | +4.3% | +5.0% | +3.0% | +4.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -24.6% | +8.0% | +6.1% | +6.3% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -30.0% | +9.8% | +5.9% | +7.7% | +11.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.00x | 0.51x | 0.06x | 0.44x | 0.93x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$18M | $12.2B | $483M | $2.5B | $3.4B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $700M | $277M | $291M | $1.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $605,605 | $12.9B | $760M | $2.8B | $4.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -177.94x | 5.44x | 8.81x | 3.71x | 5.37x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SQM leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SQM five years ago would be worth $19,418 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,954 for GRO. Over the past 12 months, SQM leads with a +173.2% total return vs MOS's -24.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SQM at 12.0% vs GRO's -42.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +32.7% | +9.1% | -7.6% | +4.4% | +31.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.5% | +24.6% | -24.6% | -9.8% | +173.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +16.0% | -32.7% | +7.5% | +40.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +28.1% | -27.9% | +12.6% | +94.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -80.5% | +54.0% | +14.9% | +98.7% | +464.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -42.0% | +5.1% | -12.4% | +2.4% | +12.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NTR and SQM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NTR is the less volatile stock with a -0.07 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GRO's 1.84 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SQM currently trades 93.5% from its 52-week high vs MOS's 59.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.84x | -0.07x | 0.52x | 0.65x | 1.24x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.99 | $85.36 | $38.23 | $7.35 | $98.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.25 | $53.03 | $22.74 | $4.76 | $29.36 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +66.2% | +80.1% | +59.9% | +81.6% | +93.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.3 | 48.9 | 42.7 | 61.9 | 61.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 988K | 3.8M | 9.5M | 1.7M | 1.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NTR and MOS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GRO as "Buy", NTR as "Buy", MOS as "Hold", ICL as "Hold", SQM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 51.5% upside for GRO (target: $4) vs -17.6% for SQM (target: $76). For income investors, MOS offers the higher dividend yield at 4.15% vs SQM's 0.26%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $4.00 | $84.25 | $31.25 | $6.15 | $75.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 1 | 33 | 49 | 4 | 16 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.2% | +4.2% | +2.9% | +0.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.22 | $0.95 | $0.17 | $0.24 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SQM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). MOS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
GRO vs NTR vs MOS vs ICL vs SQM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Nutrien Ltd.
(NTR) is the stronger pick with 5. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 4% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. (SQM). The Mosaic Company (MOS) offers the better valuation at 5. 9x trailing P/E (15. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) a "Buy" — based on 1 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.
02Which has the better valuation — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
On trailing P/E, The Mosaic Company (MOS) is the cheapest at 5.
9x versus ICL Group Ltd at 33. 3x. On forward P/E, Nutrien Ltd. is actually cheaper at 12. 0x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: ICL Group Ltd wins at 0. 27x versus The Mosaic Company's 0. 91x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
Over the past 5 years, Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.
A. (SQM) delivered a total return of +94. 2%, compared to -80. 5% for Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SQM returned +464. 6% versus GRO's -80. 5%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Nutrien Ltd.
(NTR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 07β versus Brazil Potash Corp. 's 1. 84β — meaning GRO is approximately -2641% more volatile than NTR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 93% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Nutrien Ltd.
(NTR) is pulling ahead at 5. 3% versus -39. 4% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. (SQM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Mosaic Company grew EPS 605. 5% year-over-year, compared to -276. 5% for Brazil Potash Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SQM leads at 16. 5% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.
06Which has better profit margins — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
The Mosaic Company (MOS) is the more profitable company, earning 10.
5% net margin versus -8. 9% for Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S. A. — meaning it keeps 10. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SQM leads at 23. 5% versus 0. 0% for GRO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NTR leads at 31. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.
07Is GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, ICL Group Ltd (ICL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 27x versus The Mosaic Company's 0. 91x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Nutrien Ltd. (NTR) trades at 12. 0x forward P/E versus 15. 7x for The Mosaic Company — 3. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GRO: 51. 5% to $4. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM?
In this comparison, MOS (4.
2% yield), NTR (3. 2% yield), ICL (2. 9% yield), SQM (0. 3% yield) pay a dividend. GRO does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GRO or NTR or MOS or ICL or SQM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Nutrien Ltd.
(NTR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 07), 3. 2% yield). Brazil Potash Corp. (GRO) carries a higher beta of 1. 84 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NTR: +54. 0%, GRO: -80. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.
10What are the main differences between GRO and NTR and MOS and ICL and SQM?
Both stocks operate in the Basic Materials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: GRO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; NTR is a mid-cap deep-value stock; MOS is a small-cap deep-value stock; ICL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; SQM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. NTR, MOS, ICL pay a dividend while GRO, SQM do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.